A framework to analyse IS alignment approaches:
Towards the definition of underlying alignment
mechanisms
Oscar Avila1, Virginie Goepp1, François Kiefer1
1
LGeCo – LICIA, 24, bld de la Victoire,
67084 – Strasbourg Cedex France
{oscar.avila, virginie.goepp, francois.kiefer} @insa-strasbourg.fr
Abstract. Today, companies are immersed in extremely competitive worldwide markets that change continuously. Thus, companies have to evolve
introducing strategic and structural changes as a response to the external forces
of the environment. This implies to consider the IS alignment from a global
point of view integrating the classical “internal” strategic alignment with two
other levels: the alignments with the environment and with uncertain
evolutions. In this boarder, approaches that support and operationalise IS
alignment are numerous but remain fuzzy towards the kind of alignment
tackled. Therefore, it is proposed to build an analysis framework taking the
global alignment problematic into account. It is composed of four elements and
corresponding attributes detailing each aspect of alignment. This framework is
applied to nine current alignment approaches in order to get a wide picture of
the research in the domain. The corresponding analysis emphasises possible
new work perspectives.
Keywords: IS alignment, alignment approach, information system, analysis
framework
1 Introduction
Today, companies are immersed in extremely competitive world-wide markets that
change continuously. In order to remain competitive and to survive, a company has to
evolve introducing strategic and structural changes as a response to external forces.
Such internal changes should impact, in most of cases, several levels of the
organisation, namely, strategic, organisational, and information system (IS) levels.
Corresponding dynamic adaptations of the IS are studied in the IS alignment field.
The importance of IS alignment has been stated in several works such as [1] and [2].
Three levels of alignment are suggested by Camponovo et al. in [3] to enable a
global and complete alignment of IS. The first alignment level corresponds to the
nowadays “classical” -internal- alignment. It exists when the IS is in concordance
with business organisation's goals and activities [4]. The second alignment level takes
into consideration the external environment and assumes that the IS has to integrate
features for assessing this environment. Finally, the third level copes with evolutions
80 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
over time and emphasizes the necessity to design IS able to evolve according to future
changes in the organisation and its environment. Even though the internal level of
alignment remains an essential and necessary first step in achieving alignment, the
two others levels have progressively gained importance due to the increasing
uncertainty and complexity of the external environment.
Several approaches have been proposed to support and operationalise IS alignment.
Nevertheless, in these works there is no consensus about the terms used to denote
each alignment level. Recurrent notions such as “IT/Business alignment” and
“strategic alignment” can be found in the literature to indistinctly denote one
alignment level and the three levels globally. This is harmful for the good
understanding of the contributions and the target of those approaches. This
understanding is crucial to analyse their usability and efficiency. Moreover, existing
analysis of alignment approaches like [5] focus on the description of such works in
order to work out the business/alignment requirements. In other words, there are no
means to analyse and understand their underlying logic. The variety of the IS
alignment approaches, their fuzziness in terms of target and used concepts show the
need for such analysis means. These are essential to analyse the strengths and lacks of
the existing and to propose ways to improve them.
Thus, this paper aims to explore some of the issues underlying IS alignment
approaches and to propose a framework for their analysis through the characterization
of their alignment mechanisms. Motivations for developing such a framework are
twofold: (1) to identify the types of alignment addressed by them, and (2) to help to
understand existing alignments approaches. The paper is organised in four sections.
Section 2 gives a detailed description of the proposed framework. Section 3 applies
the framework to nine IS alignment approaches. Section 4 analyses the results and
draws conclusions and research perspectives.
2 An Analysis Framework to Analyse IS Alignment Approaches
IS Alignment is viewed in the literature as a conceptual bridge that links the IS
domain to different viewpoints on other domains of an organisation and its
environment. A first analysis of existing contributions, shows that those approaches
are mainly composed of: (1) a set of layers representing organisational domains and
(2) an alignment sequence to fit and link these organisational domains in an
established order.
In other words, IS alignment deals with the two following questions:
- What domains should be align towards the IS domain?
- In what sequence align these domains?
In order to analyse IS alignment according the three levels proposed in [3], it is
suggested to add the two following questions:
- Are there means to scan the environment ?
- Is the temporal dimension integrated ?
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 81
The first question is related to the alignment with the environment. To tackle this
level two main activities are required: (1) Scanning the environment, (2) Defining
supporting strategies. Therefore, the “environment scanning” ability of existing
approaches has to be added. Moreover, once the environment has been scanned and
the external forces understood, organisations can develop strategies in Business and
IT domains as a response to maintain or change their position. In other words, this
alignment level requires to integrate additional domains towards the domains
“classically” implied in the strategic alignment. Indeed, alignment with the strategy, is
traditionally performed by aligning the business strategy with the business processes,
which are then in turn aligned with the IS. In this view the IT strategy is not
considered. However, it has to be because this domain contributes to the alignment
with the environment. Therefore, it is proposed to exploit and complete the concepts
proposed in the SAM (Strategic Alignment Model) [6]. Indeed this model takes the IT
strategy into account as a stand alone domain required to align IS, and in this sense
tackles not only the strategic alignment of IS.
The second question is related to the alignment with uncertain evolutions. This
alignment level requires a repeated alignment of the IS (with the strategy and with the
environment) over the time. To perform this level the temporal dimension has to be
integrated.
2.1 Structure of the Framework
To deal with these four questions defining the complete IS alignment problematic we
propose to structure the framework as follows (cf. Fig. 1):
- To each question corresponds an analysis element in the framework. An
element constitutes a particular aspect of the complete alignment problematic.
- To each element corresponds a set of attributes defining the underlying
alignment mechanisms.
- To each attribute corresponds a limited set of values characterizing the defined
alignment mechanisms in order to classify the analysed approaches.
Element 1
Framework
Element
n
Attribute 1
Values
Attribute n
Values
Attribute 1
Values
Attribute n
Values
Fig. 1. Structure of the Framework.
The framework consists of the following elements (cf. Table 1):
- The involved domains corresponding to the question “What domains should
be aligned towards the IS domain ?”
- The alignment sequence corresponding to the question “In what sequence
align these domains?”.
82 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
- The environment scanning corresponding to the question “Are there means
to scan the environment?”
- The temporal dimension corresponding to the question “Is the temporal
dimension integrated?”
Table 1. Framework Overview.
Element
Attribute
Values
Involved domains Involved domains
*Business strategy
*Organisational infrastructure and
processes
*IT strategy
*IT infrastructure and processes
Alignment
sequence
Domain
classification
*Anchor
*Pivot
*Impacted
Type of
relationships
*Strategic fit
*Functional integration
Alignment nature
*Planned
*Emergent
Environment
scanning
Environment
scanning
*Yes
*No
Temporal
dimension
Temporal
dimension
*Yes
*No
2.2 “Involved Domains” Element
The involved domains element has just one attribute with the same name. The
corresponding values stem from the Strategic Alignment Model (SAM) of Henderson
and Venkatraman [6], which provides a complete and structured description of the
domains and perspectives involved in the alignment. Indeed, the SAM draws a
distinction between the external perspective of information technologies (IT strategy)
and the internal focus of IT (IT infrastructure and process). It elevates IT strategy
from the traditional role of IT as an internal support mechanism. In this sense it does
not only tackle the strictly speaking alignment with strategy (linkage between the
firm’s IS and business plans [7]) but integrates the domains required for the alignment
with the environment.
According to the SAM two main domains are involved in the alignment: the
business and the IT domains. These are split into two sub-domains through the
external and the internal perspectives corresponding respectively to the strategy and
the structure of each domain. Thus, the corresponding values in the framework are as
follows:
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 83
- Business strategy at the external level of the business domain. It is structured
by three components: business scope, business competencies and business
governance.
- Organisational infrastructure and processes that form the internal level of
the business area. This domain is composed of three components: administrative
infrastructure, skills and business processes.
- IT strategy at the external level of the IT domain. It is structured by three
components: technology scope, systemic competencies and IT governance.
- IS infrastructure and processes that form the internal level of the IT area. In
the same way, it is formed by three components: IS architecture, IS skills and IS
processes.
2.3 “Alignment Sequence” Element
The alignment sequence element describes and draws the sequence or path of
alignment between the involved domains. Three attributes are proposed: (1) the
domain classification corresponding to the position of the domain in the sequence, (2)
the type of relationships between these domains and (3) the nature of the alignment
sequence. These attributes can be described as follows:
- Domain classification: (values: anchor, pivot and impacted): this attribute
aims at identifying the position of an involved domain in the sequence. In other words
it emphasizes the direction of the alignment path. Indeed, according to [8] the
involved domains can be classified as anchor domain, pivot domain and impacted
domain. The direction of the alignment sequence runs from the anchor domain to the
impacted domain, via the pivot domain. The anchor domain is represented by a
square, the pivot domain by a circle and the impacted domain by the arrow's head (cf.
Fig. 2).
- Type of relationships: (values: strategic fit and functional integration): this
attribute describes the kind of relationship between the involved domains (cf. Fig. 2).
According to the SAM [6], there are two kind of relationships between the involved
domains: (1) Strategic fit describing the interrelationships between external and
internal perspectives of a same domain (“business” or “IT” domain) and (2)
Functional integration describing the link between “business” and ”IT” domains for a
same perspective.
- Alignment nature: (values: planned / emergent): this attribute focuses on the
way of leading a given alignment sequence. According to [9], there are two modes of
change that describe the role of the strategy through the process of alignment: planned
and emergent modes. For the former, the alignment sequence is guided by the
business strategy. On the other hand, in the later, the business strategy is shaped
gradually through the process of change that makes alignment.
2.4 “Environment Scanning” and “Temporal Dimension” Elements
The two last elements of the framework “environment scanning” and “temporal
dimension” have one attribute with the same name as the element. The corresponding
84 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
values are yes or no, indicating respectively if the environment is scanned or not and
if the time perspective is integrated or not.
Business
IT
Anchor domain
External
Strategic fit
Pivot domain
Impacted domain
Internal
Functional Integration
Fig. 2. Graphical Representation of the Framework
3 Analysis of IS Alignment Approaches
This section proposes an analysis of nine IS alignment approaches. The aim is, first of
all, to get a ‘‘wide’’ picture of the research area of IS alignment. It is, secondly, to use
the framework to analyse these approaches by identifying the levels of alignment
addressed by them. For each work, the analysis is based on a mapping between the
concepts proposed in the framework (elements and values of these elements) and the
concepts proposed in each approach. Therefore, the analysis follows the same
structure:
- Identify involved domains: this task consists in mapping the involved domains
of the framework to these proposed in each approach. This is difficult because the
domains of the approaches are often defined on a fuzzy manner and it is sometimes
difficult to match perfectly the proposed domains to the framework involved domains.
In this case, we choose to map the proposed domains to both involved domains of the
framework. For example, in the BITAM approach [10], the term strategy covers the
external business and IT domains of our framework.
- Identify the alignment sequences;
- Identify the addressed alignment levels (Environment scanning and Temporal
dimension).
The following nine approaches have been analysed:
- BITAM (Business IT Alignment Method) [10]
- Fujisu (Australia) Framework [11]
- MIT90s Model [12]
- Longépé's approach [13]
- B-SCP [14]
- BALES [15]
- ARIS [16]
- Wieringa's approach [17]
- SEAM (Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology) [18].
The analysis results are synthesized in Table 2. This table is structured around four
columns: the first gives the name of the approach, the second and the third detail the
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 85
alignment level, the last describes the involved domains and the corresponding
alignment sequences.
In this paper it is proposed to detail the analysis of two approaches BITAM
(Business IT Alignment Method) [10] and SEAM (Systemic Enterprise Architecture
Methodology) [18]. First, it enables to illustrate how the analysis was performed.
Secondly, it focuses on two approaches providing interesting elements towards
performing a complete IS alignment. BITAM recommends the “misalignment”
concept. SEAM recommends both “top-down” and “bottom-up” alignment sequences.
3.1 BITAM (Business IT Alignment Method)
BITAM (Business IT Alignment Method) [10] is a method that provides a set of
twelve steps for managing, detecting and correcting misalignment. The methodology
is an integration of two hitherto distinct analysis areas: business analysis and
architecture analysis. The method invites different stakeholders, taking part in the
project, to consider a range of re-alignment strategies. Then, it provides a process of
decision to choose among possible alternatives. BITAM defines three layers of a
business system:
Business model: drivers, (business/IT) strategies, investments, revenue.
Business architecture: applications, business processes, workflow, data flow
IT architecture: hardware, software, networks, components, interfaces
Misalignments are defined as improper mappings between the layers. To manage
these misalignments, BITAM proposes to manage continuously three alignments
between the three layers:
1. The business model to the business architecture: it is ensured via the
creation/exercising of operational scenarios which represent the business
processes and practices that satisfy the business requirements and goals. These
operational scenarios are mapped to the models of the current business
architecture in order to detect and quantify misalignments.
2. The business architecture to the IT architecture: to deal with this alignment, the
operational scenarios representing the business processes and practices are
mapped to the current IT architecture in order to detect misalignments.
3. The business model to the IT architecture: it is ensured via the
creation/exercising of IT change scenarios satisfying the business drivers. These
change scenarios are mapped to the currently IT architecture in order to detect
misalignments.
Once misalignments have been detected, alignment strategies are selected and
adopted in order to restore coherence of the mappings. The analysis of the BITAM
using the framework is as follows:
- Identify involved domains: in this task we place the BITAM domains into the
involved domains of the framework. Sometimes it is difficult to match perfectly the
proposed BITAM domains to the framework involved domains. For example BITAM
Business models concern fuzzy notions such as business drivers, business/IT
strategies, investments, etc. that may be placed in Business Strategy or IT Strategy
86 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
domains. In this case, we choose to mapping it to both involved domains. In the same
way the other BITAM domains have been placed (c.f. table 2.)
- Identifying the alignment sequences: from the three alignments proposed in
BITAM, the alignment sequences are analysed as follows:
• Domain classification: the change begins always at the business model (IT
strategy and business strategy involved domains) which is the anchor
domain. Business architecture and IT architecture are always the pivot or
impacted domain.
• Type of relationship: this approach addresses the strategic fit in the business
and IT involved domains (on one hand alignment between business model
and business architecture for the business domains; on the other hand
alignment between business model and business and IT architectures) as
well as the functional integrations between IT and business at the internal
level (business architecture to IT architecture) (c.f. table 2.)
•
Alignment nature: planned. Indeed, the identified alignment sequences are
guided by the IT and business strategies (c.f. table 2.)
- Identifying the addressed alignment levels: This approach considers the
external environment at the business model layer. However evolutions over time are
not explicitly supported.
3.2 SEAM (Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology)
Wegman in [18] considers the enterprise as a complex system that is continually in
evolution. A SEAM enterprise architecture model evolves and can be adapted to
represent changes of the environment. This enterprise architecture model is structured
in organisational levels. An organisational level describes the enterprise from the
viewpoint of one or more specialists.
SEAM considers four organisational levels:
- The business level represents the company and its partners in its market. It is
generally used to understand the value created for the customer by the service or
goods, and how revenue is made.
- The company level represents internal processes and interactions to achieve the
strategic goals of the company.
- The operation level represents the people and systems composing the company
(e.g. warehousing system or IT application). The operation level is generally analysed
in terms of operating expenditure optimisation
- The technology level represents the technical infrastructure composing the
systems (e.g. machinery in the warehouse or software components in the IT
applications).
Each level describes either what currently exists (as-is) or what should exist (to-be)
by using modelling techniques. This approach does not prioritise any of these levels
to initiate or drive alignment. Moreover, no order of alignment is recommended. The
iterative alignment process of the SEAM begins with the decision of an enterprise to
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 87
react to or to anticipate a change. The SEAM alignment iterations have 3 kinds of
development activities:
Multi-level modelling: the goal of this activity is to make a new model, or
to modify an existing model of the organizational levels of the enterprise.
Multi-level design: the goal of this activity is to identify gaps (between what
currently exists (as-is) or what should exist (to-be)) and to resolve them. By doing so,
new process and resources are defined to be developed and deployed.
Multi-level deployment: the goal of this activity is to transform what is
described in each organizational level to-be in artefacts that can be understood (by
people or computers).
The analysis of the SEAM using the framework is as follows:
- Identifying involved domains: taking into consideration the description of the
BITAM organisational levels, and matching their main characteristics with
characteristics of the components of the analysis framework domains, we propose to
map: (i) the business level to the business strategy domain; (ii) the company level to
the organisational infrastructure and processes domain; (iii) the technology level to the
IT infrastructure and processes domain. Mapping the operation level was quite
complex because this organisational level concerns human resources aspects that may
be placed at the organisational infrastructure and processes domain, as well as
systemic and technological aspects that may be placed at the IT infrastructure and
processes domain. In this case, we choose to map it to both involved domains of the
framework (c.f. table 2.)
- Identifying the alignment sequences: the alignment sequences for the SEAM
are analysed as follows:
• Domain classification: no order of alignment is recommended and change
can start at any level. Therefore, any involved domain may become anchor,
pivot or impacted domain.
• Type of relationship: The possible relationships that compose the possible
alignment sequences are: strategic fit between the domains business strategy
and organisational infrastructure and processes; and functional integration
between the domains organisational infrastructure and processes, and IT
infrastructure and processes.
•
Alignment nature: planned or emerged. Indeed, the identified alignment
sequences may be driven by any involved domain (c.f. table 2.)
Identify the addressed alignment levels: Although even as the IT strategy is not
formally taken into account, SEAM considers the environment by modelling external
actors, usages of products and services of the company, and market issues at the
business level. These characteristics could be extended to consider the IT
environment. The iterative method of SEAM enables to imagine future scenarios (tobe) for each organisational level and to reduce the gap between what currently exists
(as-is) and these future scenarios (to-be). This gap is reduced by developing and
deploying new resources in order to keep coherence between the organisational
levels. It can be a means to align IS with evolutions of the strategy and environment.
88 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
Table 2. Analysis Synthesis
Approach
BITAM
Environ.
Scanning
Yes
Temporal
dimension
Involved domains and
Alignment sequence
No
Planned
Fujisu
(Australia)
Framework
Yes
No
Emerged
MIT90s Model
Yes
No
Planned
Longépé's
No
No
approach
Planned
B-SCP
Yes
No
Planned
BALES
No
No
Planned
ARIS
No
No
Planned
Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008 89
Approach
Environ.
Scanning
Wieringa's
Yes
Temporal
dimension
Involved domains and
Alignment sequence
No
approach
Planned
SEAM
Yes
Yes
Planned or emergent
4 Conclusion
This paper proposes a framework to analyse existing IS alignment approaches in
order to evaluate their support to a complete IS alignment (alignments with the
strategy, with the environment and with the uncertain evolutions). The structure of the
framework is derived from four questions that define the complete IS alignment
problematic. For each question an analysis element was determined. Attributes values
for each element were specifically developed to describe the underlying alignment
mechanisms and to identify the contributions of the analysed approaches in terms of
alignment levels. Once the structure of the framework detailed, it was applied to nine
approaches. The analysis performed highlights the following three conclusions:
- All the analysed approaches support the alignment with the strategy.
Generally, this alignment is performed with the business strategy as anchor domain,
the business processes as pivot domain and the IS infrastructure as impacted domain.
Therefore, BITAM and SEAM are interesting because (1) the first proposes a double
alignment path taking into account the IT strategy and (2) the later allows several
alignment paths.
- Five approaches, namely, Fujisu Framework, MIT90s Model, B-SCP,
Wieringa's approach and SEAM give means to scan the environment. This is a key
factor for supporting alignment with the environment.
- The temporal dimension is seldom tackled only the SEAM integrates this
dimension.
Concerning the underlying alignment mechanisms the following conclusions can
be drawn. A planned alignment sequence begins always at the external domain level.
In this case, the alignment sequence always consists in the composition of, at least, a
strategic fit and a functional integration (in this order or in the opposite). An emerged
alignment sequence begins always at the internal level. For both alignment sequence
natures the impacted domain takes place at the internal level (generally the IS
infrastructure). Last but not least the IS is considered as aligned if three of the four
domains are implied in the sequence.
90 Proceedings of MoDISE-EUS 2008
This analysis shows that the alignments with the environment and this with
uncertain evolutions have become less attention. These levels should be tackled in
future researches. Moreover, all possible paths have not been exploited.
References
1. Porter M. From competitive advantage to corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review;
1987; 65 (3): 43-59.
2. Ciborra CU. De profundis? Deconstructing the concept of strategic alignment. Scandinavian
Journal of Information Systems; 1997; 9 (1): 67-82.
3. Camponovo G, Pigneur Y. Information Systems alignment in uncertain environments. IFIP
International Conference on Decision Support System DSS'2004: Decision Support in an
Uncertain and Complex World, Prato, Tuscany; 2004, p. 134-146.
4. McKeen JD, Smith HA, Wiley, Chichester; Hoboken, NJ, 2003. Making IT Happen: Critical
Issues in IT Management. Chichester: Wiley; 2003.
5. Gmati I, Nurcan S. A Framework for Analyzing Business/Information System Alignment
Requirements. International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS'07),
Madeira, Portugal; 2007.
6. Henderson JC, Venkatraman N. Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for
transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal; 1993; 32 (1): 4-17.
7. Premkumar G, King WR. An empirical assessment of IS planning and the role of
information systems in organizations. Journal of Management Information System; 1992; 9
(2): 99-125.
8. Luftman J, Lewis P, Oldach S. Transforming the Enterprise: The Alignment of Business and
Information Technology Strategies. IBM Systems Journal; 1993; 32 (1): 198-221.
9. Hsiao R, Ormerod R. A New Perspective on the Dynamics of IT-Enabled Strategic Change.
Information Systems Journal; 1998; 8: 21-52.
10. Chen H-M, Kazman R, Garg A. BITAM: An engineering-principled method for managing
misalignments between business and IT architectures. Science of Computer Programming;
2005; 57 (1): 5-26.
11. Yetton PW, Johnston KD, Craig JF. Computer-Aided Architects: A Case Study of IT and
Strategic Change. Sloan Management Review; 1994; 35 (4): 57-67.
12. Scott Morton M. The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and
Organizational Transformation. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1991.
13. Longépé C. Le projet d'urbanisation du SI - Démarche pratique avec cas concrets. Paris:
Dunod, 2nd Edition; 2004.
14. Bleistein SJ, Cox K, Verner J, Phalp KT. B-SCP: A requirements analysis framework for
validating strategic alignment of organizational IT based on strategy, context, and process.
Information and Software Technology; 2006; 48 (9): 846-868.
15. Papazoglou MP, Heuvel WJAM. Configurable Business Objects for Building Evolving
Enterprise Models and Applications. In: J.D. W.M.P. van der Aalst, & A. Oberweis (Ed.),
Springer-Verlag. Berlin; 2000, p. 328-344.
16. Scheer AW, Nüttgens M. ARIS Architecture and Reference Models for Business Process
Management. In: J.D. W.M.P. van der Aalst, & A. Oberweis (Ed.), Springer Verlag. Berlin;
2000.
17. Wieringa RJ, Blanken HM, Fokkinga MM, Grefen PWPJ. Aligning application architecture
to the business context. Conference on Advanced Information System Engineering (CAiSE
2003), Klagenfurt/Velden, Austria; 2003, p. 209-225.
18. Wegman A. The Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology Business and IT
Alignment for Competitiveness. EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland; 2002, p. 1-8.